Consider adding the concept of heirs for the Feudal settlement and the Kingdom kingdom. A ruling character could have the option of designating an heir, by name, to assume control of the settlement/kingdom if the ruler is absent for some set amount of time. Rulers with no designated heir might be seen as risky - as people who have been in guilds with absent guild leadership can probably attest to.

(Also consider calling a sole-ruler kingdom a monarchy, instead of using kingdom to mean two things.)

I was under the impression that Lawful Good would be considered two steps from True Neutral, until I read Ryan's statement to the contrary. But then I read the link he provided and it seems to be contradicting him.

Consider adding the concept of heirs for the Feudal settlement and the Kingdom kingdom. A ruling character could have the option of designating an heir, by name, to assume control of the settlement/kingdom if the ruler is absent for some set amount of time. Rulers with no designated heir might be seen as risky - as people who have been in guilds with absent guild leadership can probably attest to.

+1

The same really goes for oligarchies and their larger scale equivalents.

Quote:

(Also consider calling a sole-ruler kingdom a monarchy, instead of using kingdom to mean two things.)

+1

Do not go down the path of Paizo's pen & paper game where there are Racial Category Traits (Half Feats) and Racial Traits (Abilities).

Quote:

Will it be possible to change the Sponsor of a Chartered Company after that Company has been formed? For example, if that Company is able to found its own Settlement?

Perhaps, but if the Charter can be 'cashed out' and then re-formed under different sponsorship, then I don't think there needs to be a specific mechanic. I suppose group names will be 'reserved' once used, but if a group needs to change their name (somewhat) if/when they switch sponsorship to a new Settlement, I think that could be a good thing. On the other hand, if groups can remain intact thru transfers of alegiance/sponsorship to larger entities, then there should definitely be a 'History' function to show their past allegiances, possibly available thru a subtext/mini-icon which only appears when there IS a history (beyond their current status).

I would add that it seems like it would make alot of sense for Settlements to have options akin to Federation/Security Council (which are Nations that are run by some/all Settlements, i.e. potentially allowing each Settlement to have a different political structure, yet equivalent voice once they make a decision)... In other words, Settlements should be able to ruled by some/all of their sponsored/constituent Charter Companies... As is, they are only described in terms of how individual citizens 'rule' them, but the 'intermediary' entity of Charter Companies seems like it makes alot of sense, and would also allow a wider range of governing styles.

To add to what Nihimon wrote, re: required Alignments (which can tie into the rules for how new sub-groups are added, i.e. which procedure, or if it is allowed at all, depends on the Aligment of the petitioner), I would add that there could be 'requirements' tied to the petitioners' internal political structure as well. Of course, if every group is admitted based on consensus of all citizens then such 'requirements' can be instituted as part of that process, but when you have Open/Restricted(majority vote)/Approved(by select administrator/council) then being able to such restrictions 'in stone' can be a good thing in ensuring the decisions are done in line with the Settlement/Nation's intent.

It seems like there should be options to restrict one character/charter company/settlement from being member of multiple chartercompanies/settlements/kingdoms... Some groups could be fine with that, but others may not, for differing reasons. Especially in set-ups with 'restricted membership' councils/chambers, having characters/groups be members of multiple entities could be seen as unfair or undesired... Or characters/entities could be prevented from holding multiple 'titles'/roles, if it was agreed that would be undesired.

My concern about changing Sponsors is based entirely on my desire to see The Seventh Veil as a Chartered Company as soon as possible, which likely means we'll have to accept the sponsorship of one of the three NPC Settlements. Once we establish our own Settlement, it would be nice if we could switch to being, effectively, self-sponsored. It may be utterly meaningless, but it would be a matter of pride.

Alternately, will it be possible to form a Settlement early on and sponsor a Chartered Company before the Settlement is "formally established" by upgrading a Fort to a Settlement?

How detailed can we make the charter, and will we be able to assign different groups to be in charge of unlocking different items/buildings?

Are all votes determined by a majority of eligible voters, or can we require more or less than a majority (and determine how many in the charter)? Can we give one voter more votes, or is the limit of one/voter strict?

Re-reading the blog entry - am I reading it correctly that company charters need sponsoring settlements, but settlement charters do not need sponsors - they need a minimum of 10 people and control of a hex for some period of time? There seems to be no implicit connection between a company and a settlement, though they could share members. (Aside, we've been told that settlements would not be possible for some months after launch).

@Nihimon: If my reading is correct, it seems that you would simply disband the company you chartered in the beginning, and then your settlement would sponsor a new chartered company with the name.

Personally, I'd keep the initial charter as part of the history of my group. I'm guessing a company will have to do something to impress the NPCs to get that early charter, and that's worth remembering. But to each his own.

Are all votes determined by a majority of eligible voters, or can we require more or less than a majority (and determine how many in the charter)? Can we give one voter more votes, or is the limit of one/voter strict?

There's explicit mention of 'one person one vote' democracies and oligarchies where the select few operate by 'democracy for the few' (it's not clear if there will always be options to select democracy by majority vs. democracy by consensus for any scenario where there is a vote, whether full one person one vote for all citizens, OR oligarchy scenaris)

I do think it would be interesting if Chartered Companies/Settlements/Nations can designate some subject matters to be subject to one type of decision making (monarchy, democracy, etc) and other areas are subject to another style... With changing the rules of the game itself being a subject which would have it's own rules.

◦Feudal: One character has all the votes
◦Oligarchy: A limited group of characters have votes as apportioned by the charter
◦Democracy: Every member of the settlement has an equal vote

The political structure of a kingdom has the following options:
•Democracy: Every player character member of the player nation has an equal vote
•Executive: One settlement has all the votes
•Federation: Each settlement has one vote
•Star Chamber: A limited group of characters have votes as apportioned by the charter
•Security Council: A limited group of settlements have votes as apportioned by the charter
•Kingdom: One character has all the votes

So the 'have votes as apportioned by the charter' options allow for characters/settlements to have 'unequal' voices/votes.

Is there also options for majority vote/super-majority/unanimity?
Majority/Super-Majority with selected "veto" powers?

Quote:

All eligible voters can see how many ballots have been cast, but not by whom or what the current vote totals are. The election is resolved after 24 hours (or after all votes are cast, if less than 24 hours).

Are those bolded aspects open to variance, i.e. immediate (voting) public knowledge of who voted how, or what side of the issue at hand is winning the vote? If those ARE open to variance, I could see such 'transparent' (non-secret) votes being amenable to voters CHANGING their vote before the vote is closed... which wasn't mentioned...?

I'm in two minds about the alignment restrictions for joining a settlement. I can see the rationale behind the game mechanic, especially in relation to establishing a settlement.

What I don't like about the alignment restriction is that it [u]is[/u] a game mechanic and has very little roleplay/RL basis, unless a 'detect alignment' spell is cast on everyone who wants to live in the settlement.

I think it has the potential to inhibit roleplay and limit some plots. For instance, lets say I'm part of a laweful evil organisation and I have been tasked on spying on a chaotic good settlement to feed intelligence back to my organisation, incite discontent and evtually to assassinate powerful community leaders.

If a lawful evil character is stopped from entering and living in a CG settlement, then the opportunity for the above actions is removed.

So I'm not against this game mechanic. but it has to be flexible enough to allow for interesting player interactions that could result from the above or similiar scenarios.

Great Legionnaires is now recruiting people of evil alignments so that you can betray us and run off with our bank!

Oh wait... that would be pure insanity.

Unless there is some way to display another alignment than your true alignment to other players you would never be able to do this. If there is a way to disguise your alignment then they can make it so you can join companies based on your disguised alignment.

I'm in two minds about the alignment restrictions for joining a settlement. I can see the rationale behind the game mechanic, especially in relation to establishing a settlement.

What I don't like about the alignment restriction is that it [u]is[/u] a game mechanic and has very little roleplay/RL basis, unless a 'detect alignment' spell is cast on everyone who wants to live in the settlement.

I think it has the potential to inhibit roleplay and limit some plots. For instance, lets say I'm part of a laweful evil organisation and I have been tasked on spying on a chaotic good settlement to feed intelligence back to my organisation, incite discontent and evtually to assassinate powerful community leaders.

If a lawful evil character is stopped from entering and living in a CG settlement, then the opportunity for the above actions is removed.

So I'm not against this game mechanic. but it has to be flexible enough to allow for interesting player interactions that could result from the above or similiar scenarios.

No one with the brains needed to get a settlement running is going to allow a evil (or good if evil settlement) guy inside to spy on them for in-game "role-playing". Unless both are roleplaying at which they might as well be in their own role-playing alliance. HOWEVER why couldn't you say you're CE but your reading as CG in game because you are role-playing having some sort of undetectable alignment cast on you? The point is you can. There IS opportunity there.

Whether there is role-playing or not THERE WILL BE A TON of meta-game going on. You WILL have spies, sleeper agents, and gremlins galore infiltrating settlements, charter companies and kingdoms. Fact.

No one with the brains needed to get a settlement running is going to allow a evil (or good if evil settlement) guy inside to spy on them for in-game "role-playing". Unless both are roleplaying at which they might as well be in their own role-playing alliance. HOWEVER why couldn't you say you're CE but your reading as CG in game because you are role-playing having some sort of undetectable alignment cast on you? The point is you can. There IS opportunity there.

Whether there is role-playing or not THERE WILL BE A TON of meta-game going on. You WILL have spies, sleeper agents, and gremlins galore infiltrating settlements, charter companies and kingdoms. Fact.

In most city based adventures that I've run or played in, there are always evil characters as well as good ones. Infact I'd be surprised if Paizo hasn't put out an adventure featuring a 'good' community that didn't have some bad guys lurking in the background/foreground.

Personally, I've always felt that alignment is an unnecessary game mechanic, that can spoil adventures/interactions too quickly.

I'm blown away by the blogs yet again. The diversity and variety is v conducive for players form their own organizations and alliances. Can see politics being very influential on economics and possibly vica-versa (just don't mention the EU/euro!).

Ravening wrote:

-snip-What I don't like about the alignment restriction is that it [u]is[/u] a game mechanic and has very little roleplay/RL basis, unless a 'detect alignment' spell is cast on everyone who wants to live in the settlement.

I think it has the potential to inhibit roleplay and limit some plots. For instance, lets say I'm part of a laweful evil organisation and I have been tasked on spying on a chaotic good settlement to feed intelligence back to my organisation, incite discontent and evtually to assassinate powerful community leaders.

If a lawful evil character is stopped from entering and living in a CG settlement, then the opportunity for the above actions is removed.

So I'm not against this game mechanic. but it has to be flexible enough to allow for interesting player interactions that could result from the above or similiar scenarios.

Yeah, I'm really hazy on how alignments will influence the game. That said, reading this made me consider:

Characters probably start of with either a choice of aligment (and starter area) or start neutral and their ACTIONS slant their alignment one way or the other... thereby combined with the settlement level of social organization eg

So, companies can be a mixed bag of aligments? But Social orgnization above this scale, they cut off the good vs bad alignments - INTENTIONALLY?

I think that must be to make the actions of chaotic alignment eg murdering and such like more limited options for social progress?

From that point of view, it would seem to be a good idea putting all the bad apples together and letting them set up eg Monarchy/Kingdom; star chamber etc ie a strong/selfish/tyrant leader(s) to keep such a rabble of cut-throats and to quote

One thing I have been pondering is whether having a constructed settlement in a hex would prevent the construction of a fort or watchtower?

For example, let us say that the Order of the Thorn has an established settlement after a year. We're productive and are in the final steps of agreeing a nation charter with our allies but before that occurs, we wish to take advantage of a neighbouring hex with good resources. Would a settlement in that hex prevent us from moving in and constructing a fort as a forward staging post to invade/take over that hex?

Also, will there be 'company wars' in PFO? Basically, can we ratify that a state of war exists between two companies, over and above publically declaring it in-game or on the forums?

As someone who would be interested in forging alliances with like-minded companies, I would want to know if we were letting in someone who has a number of war-decs against them.

@Nihimon: If my reading is correct, it seems that you would simply disband the company you chartered in the beginning, and then your settlement would sponsor a new chartered company with the name.

Personally, I'd keep the initial charter as part of the history of my group. I'm guessing a company will have to do something to impress the NPCs to get that early charter, and that's worth remembering. But to each his own.

It seems a bit clumsy to have to disband the original company in order to become a settlement. For me, I believe the most important part of this scenario would be a continuous history. Characters, companies, settlements, etc, should all have a continous and visible history. Why? Because these histories become the rich fabric of the environment for ongoing activities to occur, and show that player interaction actually means something.

One thing I have been pondering is whether having a constructed settlement in a hex would prevent the construction of a fort or watchtower?

For example, let us say that the Order of the Thorn has an established settlement after a year. We're productive and are in the final steps of agreeing a nation charter with our allies but before that occurs, we wish to take advantage of a neighbouring hex with good resources. Would a settlement in that hex prevent us from moving in and constructing a fort as a forward staging post to invade/take over that hex?

That's a good question. They haven't answered it directly in the blogs that I can find. Although, the requirement that you have to clear out any non-allied Forts and Watchtowers prior to building your Settlement implies that non-allied Forts and Watchtowers can't be built there once your Settlement is up.

Lictor Fedryn Mannorac wrote:

Also, will there be 'company wars' in PFO? Basically, can we ratify that a state of war exists between two companies, over and above publically declaring it in-game or on the forums?

When two entities (characters, Companies, Settlements or Kingdoms) both set their relationship standing to "Hostile", a state of war will exist between them. Killing someone you are at war with (or burning down their Inn) is not a criminal act. It probably won't have alignment implications either.

Both sides have to agree however, because otherwise you'll have a situation where people are being targeted for wars against their will, and they'll lose the value of the safety of the security system - thus negating a lot of its value.

Further to Nihilon's point, if diagonals are allowed then that would permit a Neutral Evil character to feasibly join a Lawful Neutral guild. I recognise that it would hurt True Neutral guilds but I'm not sure that this is a case where the MMO mechanics should trump the P&P mechanics.

One thing I think I have not experienced in any game is an implemented Salary system.

You can use the Contract system to do this, although it would require a few contortions. Perhaps in an evolved state Settlements could be parties to Contracts and they could automatically renew or something to help reduce the bookkeeping.

I think the issue of Neutral being 1-step away from all alignments is the error.

Otherwise, all the big successful Settlements will be Neutral, and anyone who proposes starting a Settlement that isn't Neutral will face a huge uphill battle.

RyanD

I expected as much. Makes sense this way. Although this leads me to believe that most of the Settlements will be on some Neutral Axis. N will still probably make the largest since it can have 5 relevant Alignments. While I bet most others will be NG,LN,CN or NE. Seeing very few CG,LG,LE, or CE settlements.

One thing I have been pondering is whether having a constructed settlement in a hex would prevent the construction of a fort or watchtower?

The Settlement that controls that Hex is likely to prevent its construction.

Violently.

From which I would infer that gameplay mechanics wouldn't negate the opportunity for an invading post to be able to place a fort and hold it in order to create a forward staging post so that, for example, materials to build siege engines could be transported there and the engines created in the hex in whiuthey are required lessening the opportunity for their destruction.

Also, it could allow for swift capture of a hex should the original controlling settlement be razed to the ground.

Having fewer settlements at the extremes makes sense though. I'd venture that LG/LE would be the two extremes most likely to have their own settlements. CG might not wish to put down roots, instead seeking to right wrongs wherever they are. CE just wouldn't work with one another long enough to establish a settlement.

I have a *potential* problem with the alignment requirements for groups.

Let's say an evil rogue wants to pretend to be a cleric and join a good aligned religion. Said rogue is actually an assassin with a high UMD skill. He uses scrolls and the like to impersonate one of the good guys, gets close to his desired target and slits his throat.

This kind of trickery is extremely fun, as I had a great deal of fun playing a blackguard (antipaladin) in neverwinter nights servers. I bought the shiniest most holy looking set of plate armor I could find, lured my new "friends" to the bottom of a cave and killed them.

An alignment requirement might make this kind of play difficult or impossible. Maybe there could be some kind of fix: Perhaps an item that could effectively hide your alignment, or make it look like a different alignment.

Having fewer settlements at the extremes makes sense though. I'd venture that LG/LE would be the two extremes most likely to have their own settlements. CG might not wish to put down roots, instead seeking to right wrongs wherever they are. CE just wouldn't work with one another long enough to establish a settlement.

I gleefully disagree.

I see the potential of CE settlements, their lands spreading like a cancer- supported by gibbering hordes of undead monstrosities.

I see the potential of CE settlements, their lands spreading like a cancer- supported by gibbering hordes of undead monstrosities.

This is the Definition of CE

Chaotic Evil: A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life, but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.

What about that Definition seems to make you think that CE settlements would turn into huge areas? Too much in-fighting.

One of those two statements is an error. I'm just not sure which one I think should be wrong. :)

I think the issue of Neutral being 1-step away from all alignments is the error.

Otherwise, all the big successful Settlements will be Neutral, and anyone who proposes starting a Settlement that isn't Neutral will face a huge uphill battle.

RyanD

That wasn't the clarification I was expecting...

However, moving right along, can you clarify a bit about your vision for the relative scope of Companies, Settlements, and Kingdoms? Specifically, does it make sense in your mind to have a single Chartered Company creating multiple Settlements, and perhaps even spawning an entire Kingdom within its membership?

I have a *potential* problem with the alignment requirements for groups.

Let's say an evil rogue wants to pretend to be a cleric and join a good aligned religion. Said rogue is actually an assassin with a high UMD skill. He uses scrolls and the like to impersonate one of the good guys, gets close to his desired target and slits his throat.

This kind of trickery is extremely fun, as I had a great deal of fun playing a blackguard (antipaladin) in neverwinter nights servers. I bought the shiniest most holy looking set of plate armor I could find, lured my new "friends" to the bottom of a cave and killed them.

An alignment requirement might make this kind of play difficult or impossible. Maybe there could be some kind of fix: Perhaps an item that could effectively hide your alignment, or make it look like a different alignment.

It seems we're on the same wavelength Dr Carrion. Like you I have played on persistent worlds on NWN servers, so I've come to expect this kind of interaction.

The alignment restriction is a metagame OOC game mechanic. I think it works fine for the establishment of a settlement, by insisting that the founding fathers/people of influence are of a like mind. This would then force those who have some actual power in a settlement to be of relative like minds.

IMHO it doesn’t make sense for a True Neutral settlement to refuse access to a CG ranger that wants to buy some equipment from the settlement. Nor does it make sense to say that said ranger can’t stay overnight at the local Inn.

If we look at this at an IG RP perspective. It would take a huge amount of spell-casting resource to try and check everyone who wanted to visit a settlement in a day. If you scale this effort up to a town or city it soon becomes very impractical.

In PnP adventures and sourcebooks evil, good and everything in-between can be found in all the cities and settlements. I’m sure the same is true in Paizo products.

So I’m not against this mechanic itself, and it will likely have very little impact on my Neutral aligned character. However, it would restrict a lot of roleplay and commercial interactions from occuring.

Having fewer settlements at the extremes makes sense though. I'd venture that LG/LE would be the two extremes most likely to have their own settlements. CG might not wish to put down roots, instead seeking to right wrongs wherever they are. CE just wouldn't work with one another long enough to establish a settlement.

I gleefully disagree.

I see the potential of CE settlements, their lands spreading like a cancer- supported by gibbering hordes of undead monstrosities.

I think the key is that settlements need to look after the "common folk" and that is something CE would likely not "achieve". CE would hollow out a settlement's value and move on to the next easiest/weakest target on offer or self-cannabalize itself and splinter into bickering factions, in theory.

To add: "There is no honor among thieves" and I suppose the alignment system is something a bit like honor? It works for those who have it and for those who don't it can never work!

edit: So kinda it makes sense? But also I wonder if it's a good system to split players into organizations with the same aims AND distribute players around the map via alignment and interest more evenly?

My issue with the alignment restrictions is that if me and my friends are all over the alignment scale and want to play together and live in the same settlement and such we can't. We have to play characters that are close to each other alignment wise to do so and thus are restricted by the game on how we play. Which seems counter productive to the way that the game seems to want to come together. Personally I think the alignment requirements should be replaced with laws. As long as I follow the laws (or at least no one finds out I'm breaking them) I can stay. If I'm evil and raid away from my home and can keep it from them there's no reason that they should be able to throw me out because the game keeps track of my alignment.

Which seems counter productive to the way that the game seems to want to come together.

I think this is a common misunderstanding of sand box games, and catering to this misunderstanding has been the doom of many of them.

You can't play your character "any way you want". You have to play a character that is constrained by the internal logic of the game world.

We have chosen to use the Pathfinder world as our game world, and its internal logic is that people have alignments and those alignments are intrinsic aspects of the people who live in that world (rather than abstract philosophies like they are in our world).

Not only will your character have to have an alignment similar to your friends' characters in order to create a society with them, but if your character's actions cause your character's alignment to shift too much, you'll be kicked out of that community too!

Playing within these constraints is part of how we generate a world that "makes sense" and is fun to play in. It is also a way that we provide challenges to the players - figuring out how to do what they want while remaining within the rules is fun too.